[Bitcoin-ml] Community survey on new Bitcoin Cash address format

Mon Nov 20 13:30:03 UTC 2017

From: Matias, Copay Product Manager.

I am responding here as a Copay/Wallet developer,
(not Bitpay.com Payment processing platform developer).

>
> 1. Would it help or hinder your use cases if a distinct address format
>    were to be introduced for Bitcoin Cash addresses?
>
>    Possible answers (pick the one that dominates):
>
>      help
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. In your business or personal use, have you encountered a problem due
>    to existing Bitcoin Cash addresses being indistinguishable from
>    legacy Bitcoin addresses?
>
>      yes
>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3. Leaving your personal use cases aside, do you think it would be good
>    for Bitcoin Cash as an ecosystem to introduce a new address format?
>
>    (you can answer this question later if you first want to answer the
>    following ones to come to a decision for yourself)
>
>      yes
>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4. Please judge the importance of each of the following attributes for
>    a new address scheme, from your perspective:
>
>    (a) VISUALLY DISTINCT
>        (whether a new-format address should be visually very distinct
>         from a legacy address)
>
>   important
>

>    (b) COMPACTNESS of the format
>        (whether the length of a new-format address matters compared to
>        current legacy address)
>
>          not very important
>

>    (c) MACHINE EFFICIENCY OF ENCODING
>        (whether a new format would be more efficiently encodable by
>         a computer software)
>

 not very important
>

>    (d) MACHINE EFFICIENCY OF DECODING
>        (whether a new format would be more efficiently decodable by
>         a computer software)
>
> not very important
>

>    (e) ERROR DETECTION ABILITY
>        (whether it is important that a new format detects errors in
>         address input better than the legacy format)
>

>  not very important
>

(we didn't have any issue with the current error detection algo in current
addresses, in the years of Copay/Insight/Bitcore, that I am aware of).

>    (f) ERROR CORRECTION ABILITY
>        (whether it is important that a new format allows error
>         correction in bad address input)
>

neutral
>

   (g) HUMAN CONVERTIBILITY
>        (whether it is important that conversion between legacy and new
>         format can be done by people without any software)
>
>         unimportant
>

>    (h) EXTENSIBILTY
>        (whether it is important that a new format has built-in
>         extensibilty)
>
>       neutral
>

>
>    (i) ABILITY TO TRANSPORT HASHES LONGER THAN 160 BITS
>        (whether it is important that a new format is suitable for
>         representing larger hashes)
>
>      extremely important
>
>    (k) ENCODING IN ALPHANUMERIC MODE OF QR CODES
>        (whether it is important that a new format is encodable in
>         alphanumeric mode of QR codes)
>
>       important
>

Please note  use the BIP21  (ie: bitcoin:1xxxx?amount=1.2345, etc)  a lot,
with will not allow alphanumeric mode anyways.

>    (m) DOUBLE-CLICKABLE
>        (whether it is important that a new format address is selectable
>         by double-click in one action)
>
>          important
>

We know users use this all the time.

>
>    (n) SIMPLICITY OF SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION
>        (whether the software to implement a new format address should
>         be simple)
>
>      not very important
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5. Would you prefer a new format to remain case-sensitive or to be
>    case-insensitive?
>
>      don't care

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 6. Have you read the existing proposals for a new Bitcoin Cash address
>    format?
>    ( see references at the bottom for links to the proposals:
>      Bitpay [1],  cashaddr [2], Roy Badami [3] )
>
>      yes
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 7. Please rank the following proposals in order of your preference:
>    No-change, Bitpay, cashaddr, Badami
>
>    (rank 1 being the one you prefer the most)
>
>      1.   cashaddr
>      2.   Bitpay
>
         3.  No-change
         4.  Badami

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 9:15 PM, freetrader via bitcoin-ml <
bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> This is a short survey for those who would be affected by a decision
> to introduce to a new address format for Bitcoin Cash. The intention
> is to better understand where your preference lies and why.
> Of course you are free to ignore this survey entirely if you wish :-)
>
> I've included the three proposals of which I'm aware.
> If you know of any others which are not minor variants of one of the
> included, please add them to the list of  references and responses to
> relevant
> questions / replies.
> The penultimate question does allow for a 'No-change' choice if you
> feel that the address format should not be changed at all.
>
> INSTRUCTIONS
>
> Please replace each "answer line" by the answer you choose, and leave
> the rest of the text as context in your reply.  Further instructions
> accompany
> the questions where needed.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Would it help or hinder your use cases if a distinct address format
>    were to be introduced for Bitcoin Cash addresses?
>
>    Possible answers (pick the one that dominates):
>
>      help // hinder // not affect // not sure
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. In your business or personal use, have you encountered a problem due
>    to existing Bitcoin Cash addresses being indistinguishable from
>    legacy Bitcoin addresses?
>
>      yes // no
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3. Leaving your personal use cases aside, do you think it would be good
>    for Bitcoin Cash as an ecosystem to introduce a new address format?
>
>    (you can answer this question later if you first want to answer the
>    following ones to come to a decision for yourself)
>
>      yes // no // not sure
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4. Please judge the importance of each of the following attributes for
>    a new address scheme, from your perspective:
>
>    (a) VISUALLY DISTINCT
>        (whether a new-format address should be visually very distinct
>         from a legacy address)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (b) COMPACTNESS of the format
>        (whether the length of a new-format address matters compared to
>        current legacy address)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (c) MACHINE EFFICIENCY OF ENCODING
>        (whether a new format would be more efficiently encodable by
>         a computer software)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (d) MACHINE EFFICIENCY OF DECODING
>        (whether a new format would be more efficiently decodable by
>         a computer software)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (e) ERROR DETECTION ABILITY
>        (whether it is important that a new format detects errors in
>         address input better than the legacy format)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (f) ERROR CORRECTION ABILITY
>        (whether it is important that a new format allows error
>         correction in bad address input)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (g) HUMAN CONVERTIBILITY
>        (whether it is important that conversion between legacy and new
>         format can be done by people without any software)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (h) EXTENSIBILTY
>        (whether it is important that a new format has built-in
>         extensibilty)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (i) ABILITY TO TRANSPORT HASHES LONGER THAN 160 BITS
>        (whether it is important that a new format is suitable for
>         representing larger hashes)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (k) ENCODING IN ALPHANUMERIC MODE OF QR CODES
>        (whether it is important that a new format is encodable in
>         alphanumeric mode of QR codes)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (m) DOUBLE-CLICKABLE
>        (whether it is important that a new format address is selectable
>         by double-click in one action)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
>    (n) SIMPLICITY OF SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION
>        (whether the software to implement a new format address should
>         be simple)
>
>         unimportant  // not very important // neutral // important //
> extremely important
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5. Would you prefer a new format to remain case-sensitive or to be
>    case-insensitive?
>
>      sensitive // insensitive // don't care // unsure
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 6. Have you read the existing proposals for a new Bitcoin Cash address
>    format?
>    ( see references at the bottom for links to the proposals:
>      Bitpay [1],  cashaddr [2], Roy Badami [3] )
>
>      yes // no
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 7. Please rank the following proposals in order of your preference:
>    No-change, Bitpay, cashaddr, Badami
>
>    (rank 1 being the one you prefer the most)
>
>      1.
>      2.
>      3.
>      4.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 8. Any further comments
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proposal references:
>
> [1] https://support.bitpay.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004671663 ,
>     https://blog.bitpay.com/bitcoin-cash-wallet-beta
>
> [2] https://github.com/Bitcoin-UAHF/spec/blob/master/cashaddr.md
>
> [3] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/2017-
> November/000520.html
>
> --
>
> freetrader at tuta.io
> GPG fingerprint: CC32 9A4F B0E4 1392 8295  05FE C07A 7C34 5E86 B06C
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-ml mailing list
> bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-ml
>
>

-- 
Matías Alejo Garcia
@ematiu
Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/attachments/20171120/059d8d6f/attachment-0001.html>